## Facts

- Jayma Watson was injured while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, Randy Watson, when it skidded into the rear of an RTD bus that stopped during a right turn.
- Jayma and Randy jointly owned the motorcycle, but Jayma lacked a motorcycle license and did not know how to operate the vehicle.
- Jayma sued RTD for negligence based on the bus driver’s conduct and RTD’s route decisions.
- RTD denied negligence and asserted that Randy’s negligence caused or contributed to the collision and should be imputed to Jayma due to joint ownership and an alleged joint enterprise.
- The trial court instructed the jury that Randy’s negligence would be imputed to Jayma; the jury allocated fault 51% to RTD and 49% to Randy and awarded $100,000 in damages, resulting in a $51,000 judgment for Jayma.
- A discovery dispute arose over an accident-scene videotape prepared at the direction of RTD’s counsel; the trial court ordered production and permitted its use at trial over a work-product objection.
- The court of appeals affirmed imputation but ordered a new trial due to instructional defects; the state supreme court reviewed the imputation issue and the work-product question.

## Issues

1. Whether a driver’s negligence may be imputed to a co-owner passenger to reduce the passenger’s recovery against a third party under comparative negligence principles.
2. Whether an accident-scene videotape prepared at counsel’s direction is protected work product or discoverable upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held that Randy Watson’s negligence should not have been imputed to Jayma Watson based solely on co-ownership, marriage, or a shared errand.
- The Court held that Jayma’s recovery could be reduced only for her own negligence that proximately caused her injuries, if any.
- The Court upheld the trial court’s order requiring production and permitting use of the videotape, concluding it was discoverable work product on the record presented.
- The case was remanded for a new trial without imputation of the driver’s negligence and with videotape treatment consistent with the Court’s work-product analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative fault reductions must be grounded in the plaintiff’s personal negligence that proximately contributed to the injury, not vicarious attribution based on status or ownership.
- A spouse’s negligence is not imputed to the other spouse in a negligence action against a third party absent a legally sufficient basis tied to the plaintiff’s own fault.
- Mere co-ownership of a vehicle does not justify imputing the operator’s negligence to a non-operating owner-passenger without proof of actual control or a legally recognized basis for responsibility tied to the passenger’s conduct.
- A “joint mission” such as running errands, without more, does not establish a joint enterprise that imputes one participant’s negligence to another for comparative fault purposes.
- Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation may be discovered upon a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship.
- A videotape depicting objective conditions may be treated as ordinary work product rather than opinion work product when it does not meaningfully reveal counsel’s mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories.

## Conclusion

The court rejected automatic imputation of a driver’s negligence to a co-owner passenger and required any reduction of the passenger’s recovery to rest on the passenger’s own causative fault; it also affirmed compelled production and trial use of an accident-scene videotape as discoverable work product upon the required showing.


Watson v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 762 P.2d 133 (Colo. 1988)